The vote today * is not* THE vote on No-Confidence. It is a vote to

[Solly Mack]

measure the support for a vote of No-Confidence. It's a "test" vote on whether or not to take an actual vote of No-Confidence.


"No one is predicting that a symbolic resolution expressing no confidence in Gonzales will survive even the test vote Monday."


"The vote is whether we should take a vote to express a lack of confidence by the Senate."



http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/11/senate.gonzales.ap/index.html

[global1]

1. Well It Looks As If The Dems Are Out To Embarass Themselves Again.....

test vote????????? Another carry a big stick and then speak softly.

[Solly Mack]

3. I thought it was the actual vote but the reading of the article

suggest otherwise.

So I guess they are taking a vote to see if they have enough votes to take an official vote.

[KansDem]

34. "...speak softly"

I have nothing against Tom Daschle or Harry Reid, but I've noticed these two Dem senate leaders fall into that category..."speak softly." Say what you will about Bill Frist or Trent Lott but when they spoke, they sounded "senatorial" (no pun intended). They might be expounding pure garbage, but you couldn't deny they were doing it with force and conviction.

I think the present Dem leadership could learn from these Repub master manipulators.

[BuyingThyme]

36. They're just reserving time in this week's session to allow for

the exploration of a comprehensive compromise on the privatization of Social Security.

That seems to explain it.

[Blackhatjack]

2. It takes all the work out of 'nose counting' behind the scenes, however...

THere could be votes in favor of 'taking a vote to express a lack of confidence' and then those same votes could go against the vote of no confidence.

In any event, there will be a multitude of amendments attempted. If those amendments do not sidetrack the effort, there could be a wholesale 'not voting' by Republicans leaving the final tally just Democrats. Repubs would then just point the finger at a 'political ploy' that took up valuable time and is not bipartisan in nature.

[Solly Mack]

4. Guess we'll see how it plays out...shortly

[Beelzebud]

5. It's getting real hard to continue backing these wimps...

[madokie]

6. only backing they need is into a corner

the bastages anyway.

[Solly Mack]

11. I'm waiting on the "strategy" to be explained to me

...

(Almost typed that with a straight face)

[KoKo]

7. I don't understand why Schumer pushed this so early...he could have

waited while more info comes out about what Justice has been doing...there is new info every few days and they could have held more hearings.

With Tony Snow and Bush mocking this...do we need a "test" which then makes us look bad if we don't get enough votes to even go forward with a full vote?

The timing just seems odd...unless Schumer knows for sure that he's got enough Repugs to get the vote...and it will be a big surprise to the media and Bush when they get enough to go to vote.

I can't imagine Schumer being so "off" politically to push this if he doesn't know the outcome.

Many Dems are already so disheartened by the vote for Iraq Funding Bill and that Gonzales is still there after being caught in lies with revelations of kids running amok that another loss wouldn't be good for grassroots right now. :

[Solly Mack]

9. I admit I'm confused as to the plus side of a test vote

unless it is known for sure that it is a win for both a test vote and an actual vote...and if it is already a win...then why not just have the actual vote?

[blogslut]

8. Thank you

I did not know that. I thought this was the actual NoCo vote.

Wait. Is this like a committee thing? Or will the whole Senate be voting in this test vote?

[Solly Mack]

10. Whole Senate as far as I know...but then I thought this was the actual vote

so...

[blogslut]

12. Well, hmmph

I wonder if there's some protocol to this NoCo vote thing that I'm missing. If not, dammit. A test vote? WTF?

[Solly Mack]

14. I guess we'll hafta wait and see how it plays out

I don't get it..I admit that.

[KharmaTrain]

13. It's Getting People On Record...Especially The Repugnicans

Where does the Senator from Scotland really stand about Gonzo? Arlen? Arlen? Arlen?

How about Gordon Smith? Do you agree with Gonzo's turning the DOJ into Gitmo North? Gordon? Gordon? Gordon?

Or Hey Normie Coleman...ya standing 4 square with this regime is protecting Karl Rove? Normie? Normie?

And there are many other Repugnicans we have been hearing lots of goobildy gook about if they support Gonzo or not...time to shit or get off the pot!

A majority vote against will get the corporate media tails wagging and there will be a little more blood spilt in the waters...plus it will put booooshie and his corrupt party on more of a defensive as this scandal gets messier and sticks harder to them. Let them vote either to favor an impartial and honest justice system or lets get them on record for putting politics ahead of all else.

[bigtree]

16. right. this isn't a zero-sum enterprise

there's absolutely no immediate way to remove the man, so this has to be worked politically. If a no-confidence vote did advance it would be a historic occurrence, despite Bush's obstinacy.

[Gregorian]

26. Thanks. Some of us appreciate the explanation.

It's very easy to be lost in the political machinations.

This is what is so beautiful about DU. Even slow learners like me can come up to speed.

[spanone]

15. Let's have a vote on whether to vote and then we'll vote on the vote to vote.

utter horseshit.

[bigtree]

17. maybe you know of some other political system

where we would be able to just dictate action with the balance of power that exists in this Congress.

All of the strident criticism of the party for working through the available options that I've seen here is the real 'bullshit'. The alternatives suggested are just noise without any apparent means for their success. But no one will blame a critic posturing from outside the system for any shortcomings of their own proposals for action. Amazing that the ones who are sticking their necks out and trying to do what they can to move him out of his position are getting ragged on.

[Individualist]

28. ...followed by a non-binding resolution.

Utter horseshit, indeed.

[blogslut]

18. Some more on protocol

TPM says this is a vote to see if they can bring an actual No Confidence resolution to the floor. So maybe this is the protocol?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014565.php

[Solly Mack]

19. Thanks for the added link!

[blogslut]

20. moar

I love the Library of Congress. Apparently a Senator can object to another Senator introducing a resolution on the floor.:

"If any Senator objects to the introduction of a bill or resolution, the introduction of the bill or resolution is postponed until the next day. If there is no objection, the bill is read by title and referred to the appropriate committee. If there is an objection, the bill is placed on the Calendar.

link: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/introtocomm.html

That site is very helpful but probably doesn't go into more finite details. I do know that it isn't like Mr. Smith goes to Washington. I should study up on this stuff, huh?

[Solly Mack]

21. lol! I appreciate you adding those links

They help everyone.

I'm trying to find out if the vote will be covered live.

[blogslut]

22. Oh, most definitely

I think C-SPAN is required by their contract to cover the Senate and House while it's in session.

[Solly Mack]

23. Here's the resolution and actions

Congressional Legislation Details
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/bills/?billnum=S.J.RES.14&congress=110&size=full

'A joint resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people. '

Bill # S.J.RES.14


Status:
05/24/2007: Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.

05/25/2007: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 179.

06/06/2007: Cloture motion on the motion to proceed presented in Senate.

06/06/2007: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate.

06/06/2007: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure withdrawn in Senate.

Committee/Subcommittee Activity:
***NONE***
Amendment(s):


I was checking CSPAN.

Thanks, again!!!

[blogslut]

24. A JOINT resolution

That means it's coming from both the House and the Senate...that's important I think...lemmeee seee...

[blogslut]

25. moar

I'm betting the procedure is in here:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/hco/jointrules.htm

My head is beginning to go fuzzy from all the legalese but I'm betting the section that is titled: FORM AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS has the answer

:)

not enough coffee

[Elspeth]

27. Maybe they're just trying to avoid the embarassment by testing the waters

It's careful

[Solly Mack]

30. And they won't be embarrassed to lose the test vote?

Because it wasn't a real vote anyway?

[Elspeth]

33. "This is only a test"

They can say it wasn't real

[HCE SuiGeneris]

29. This is far too risky...

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[youthere]

31. Bwahahaha!!!!!

Only in America folks...only in America.

[hisownpetard]

32. There they go again, rushing ahead willy-nilly...

Those crazy, impetuous Dems! Where's the fire? Why not
first take an anonymous vote to see if there are enough
people willing to vote on whether to vote, before
running off half-cocked to make fools of themselves
by standing for something?

I'm starting to hate Democrats as much as Republicans.
This is not good.

[Psyop Samurai]

35. Dang... I could have sworn the marble was under...

...oh never mind - just shoot me NOW!

[LSK]

37. can they be any more timid????????

Sheesh!!!

[GeorgeGist]

38. Such confidence